St Luke's church: A message from the Man

No not that one. Mayor Joe once more explains that it won't be flats

Published on March 23rd 2014.

MAYOR Joe Anderson has moved to reassure people over the future of St Luke’s Church in a media statement. See full story here.

"It follows media reports that the city council has received an initialapproach from an organisation with some ideas for the site, which islocated at the corner of Berry Street and Leece Street,"says the statement.

Mayor Joe said: “St Luke’s Church is an iconic symbol for the City of Liverpool. It is something that is important to me personally as I grew up around the area and spent a lot of time around the church as a child.

“I am in no way looking to jeopardise the legacy or status of the buildingand everything it represents. For me and for many people in the City it isa fitting and lasting tribute to those who died in the world wars andduring the blitz of Liverpool.

Joe Anderson“The fact of the matter is, the maintenance of the building and gardenscurrently costs the council a lot of money but if there was a proposal thatprotected the integrity and status of the building it is right we shouldlook at it. However if it is not feasible or doesn't meet my requirementsand yours then it will not happen. I can give you that assurance andpromise.

“Let's be clear, I am not selling the church to become flats or houses. Iam willing to look at a proposal with an open mind and make a judgement based on the offer."

“Having no money will mean that we can no longer do as much as we would like that’s why I am open to alternatives to ensure that St Luke’s remains and will remain with us for a long time.”

Like what you see? Enter your email to sign up for our newsletters which are chock-a-block with more great reviews, news, deals and savings.

"I am not selling the church to become flats or houses." Shouldn't that be "the Council", or even "we"? It's not his private property. And he doesn't rule out some other non-residential use (such as a wedding venue, etc.), He also doesn't even mention USL, the current users, and doesn't actually say how much the council will save by getting rid of it. What are the current maintenance costs? Without knowing this, it's hard to see how USL can put in a proper bid (they will presumably need to show they have or can raise enough to properly maintain the building and site.). So if the Mayor wants to give them a fair shot, the council should provide some more information.

According to the information we have at the moment, USL have been given certain assurances that they have the first option on coming up with a workable scheme and, as far as they are concerned, work now begins to cost out what needs to be done to make it safe and fit for purpose (whatever that purpose might be in the grand plan of things) before a fundraising programme begins under the auspices of a CIC or somesuch.. That was certainly the case last Friday when the story broke and events moved quite swiftly after that, but here is a new week and we will see what that brings. What seems to be the message is that they (the council) don't want the financial responsibility of shoring the church up. This, of course, leads to all sorts of interesting scenarios should a developer with clumsy hands get hold of it, and some, as we know, possess butter-fingers when it comes to the controls on wrecking balls. Nobody wants to see another Casartelli situation or "oops guv'nor, it just fell down." So perhaps it is good that it is subject to such interest and public scrutiny at this time.

Katie54March 24th 2014.

So it won't become flats or houses?? As if - it's listed. He doesn't rule out someone turning it into Alma de Cuba mark two, though, does he?